dispatch_get_tfr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds beyond annotations by detailing the data source (FAA XML feed), return format (JSON list or error string), and the fields included in each TFR object, providing useful behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: a single sentence states purpose, followed by one sentence on data source, another on distinction from sibling, then a clear return specification, and practical examples. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero parameters and existing output schema and annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, return format, and usage guidance with examples. It is complete for this simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters but still adds value by describing the return structure and fields, earning a baseline of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets all active TFRs from the dispatch platform, specifies the resource (TFRs) and action (get all active), and distinguishes from the enriched sibling by noting the lack of AI threat interpretation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly provides an alternative tool ('dispatch_get_tfr_enriched') for AI-enriched TFRs, and gives example use cases (checking for active TFRs, filtering by type), offering good guidance on when to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.